And frankly even if you could prove it, I doubt that John would be too pleased.

Yep, the libel laws here are quite robust in protecting people's reputation, regardless of how tarnished that reputation is. There are plenty of reasons why the UK is where many celebs try to have their libel cases heard here, even when there are reasonable grounds for believing the slander/libel is true.

It is also prohibitively expensive to defend one of these actions and TRL would be jointly liable for any claims against posters as the "publisher" on an actively moderated web forum. TRL don't have tabloid level legal budgets to defend such actions and John/Martyn would be slightly more than miffed if someone endangered the jobs of those at TRL just to publish a rumour.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

Yep, the libel laws here are quite robust in protecting people's reputation, regardless of how tarnished that reputation is. There are plenty of reasons why the UK is where many celebs try to have their libel cases heard here, even when there are reasonable grounds for believing the slander/libel is true.

Indeed. South Park satyrised this by having one of the characters say "Say that again and I'll sue you.......in England!"

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

The rumour mill is in full flow and all sorts of names are being blackened on t'interweb, usually with no proof. It's one of the reasons I locked the original thread on this subject. This one may go the same way as this story appears to be eating itself now.

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

Perhaps it is a little clue if you are interested in finding out for yourself. Any mention of Thatcher brings out the paranoia in you.

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

I onl used Thatcher's name to give an indication a to how far back it went.I heard this from a preset labour counilor

but you and I weve been through that and this is not our fate.
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

You heard a criticism of Thatcher from a Labour councillor? And you took it seriously?

I have just said,it went back to the Thatcher era,meaning it went back to the 1980s

but you and I weve been through that and this is not our fate.
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

No criticism of Thatcher has been made, merely a reference to the era in which she was in power (ie 1980s). Unless a mere mention of her name is now classed as criticism.

THANKYOU

but you and I weve been through that and this is not our fate.
So let us so let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Not every matter related to a case is sub judice though, as evidenced by pre-trial coverage of criminal cases, and the absence of contempt proceedings against media outlets involved.